Karl McCartney: What assessment he has made of the impact of raising the high-income child benefit charge threshold on household incomes.

Karl McCartney: These changes are welcome, and they mean that more Lincoln families will receive more support from the Government, as I told the Minister in Lincoln on Friday. Will my hon. Friend confirm when the formal consultation on basing child benefit on household income rather than on individual income will commence, if the civil servants in the Treasury will let him do it?

Gareth Thomas: I rise to speak to new clauses 4 to 7 and amendment 1. I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to BPI. Let me at the outset say what a particular pleasure it was to listen to the maiden speech of my new hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Kingswood (Damien Egan). His description of his constituents’ comments to him during the by-election will chime with all on the Opposition side of the House. It is clear that he will be an asset to the House, and I think it is fair to say that south London’s loss is undoubtedly Kingswood’s gain.
We support accession to the CPTPP because of its geopolitical benefits and the benefits to trade, relatively limited thought they are set to be. Given that the Conservative party has delivered a recession, a cost of  living crisis and the worst growth rate in the G7, any uptick in trade and ultimately growth, however limited, would be welcome. There remain, however, a series of concerns about the Government’s approach to the CPTPP and trade deals. Our amendments and new clauses seek to address the weak arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals; the growing concern about the investor-state dispute settlement; and issues around performers’ rights, environmental, animal welfare and food standards, and the help that businesses will be offered to exploit the benefits, however limited, of this deal.
On new clause 1, I recognise the concerns articulated by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), which were echoed by the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Sir Liam Fox), and I am sympathetic to the former’s call for an enhanced role for Parliament. I am also sympathetic to new clause 11 from the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green), under which Parliament would require an assessment of the impact of any new country’s joining the CPTPP. However, I think we need to go further than both those new clauses do. Labour’s new clause 4 would require Ministers to publish such an impact assessment in Parliament and to give the House a vote on any new country joining the CPTPP. Given the security issues, the impact on particular sectors of the economy and on jobs in the UK, as well as the opportunities that an accession could bring, the British people surely have a right to expect this House to consider the merits, or lack of merit, of any new accessions to the CPTPP.
During the Lords debate, the Minister said that he thought that a new state joining CPTPP would trigger the CRaG process in the UK, but the CRaG process, as increasing numbers of Members across the House have largely come to agree, is clearly not fit for purpose; PACAC is the latest Committee to make that clear, in its recent report. New clause 4 provides the opportunity to reform part of that process. Let me refer to what was said by the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), and by the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). We were promised by the Secretary of State and by the Minister in Committee that there would be a debate under the CRaG process, as opposed to there being just this small implementing Bill. We now know that the debate will not happen, so that is another broken promise on trade.
The impact of new countries joining the CPTPP will vary, but could be considerable in certain situations. It is only right that this country expects the House to consider those impacts carefully. I hope that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, and the hon. Members for Totnes, and for Chesham and Amersham, can be persuaded to support our new clause. It would achieve what they want in practice and go further. With the leave of the House, we will press our new clause to a vote.
On new clause 5, I hesitate to damage the reputation of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell),  who made excellent speeches on the ISDS. Over the past 10 years, the marked acceleration in usage of the ISDS by large, litigious corporations to challenge Governments’ climate-related or other environmental decisions has prompted concern at the highest levels in the US, in European capitals and at the UN, so much so that Governments across the world are increasingly excluding or revoking the ISDS provisions.
The problem with the ISDS is that it is secretive; it avoids perfectly effective domestic public legal systems; it discriminates against small and medium-sized businesses; it often prevents the voice of those with a genuine interest in the decisions from being heard; and it holds back environmental and other progressive public policy changes. Strikingly, the OECD could find no sustained evidence that the ISDS was key to securing and maintaining business investment. The Nuffield Trust’s briefing for today’s debate stated that the ISDS could enable companies to challenge some health regulations and NHS policies.
The US, Canada and the European Union have all taken steps to revoke the ISDS provisions in some of their major treaties. The average amount—this is just the published cases—that Governments have been forced to pay, from taxpayers’ money, is about $600 million for climate cases. It seems even more noteworthy that the UN Secretary-General’s special rapporteur on environment and human rights expressed concern just last September that the ISDS was a significant threat to the net zero transition, the Paris agreement and tackling climate change.
Some in government clearly share some of those concerns, as they wanted to exclude the ISDS from the bilateral trade deal with Canada, and supported its abolition from trade with the European Union. The Minister was somewhat evasive in Committee. Initially, he tried to duck questions on why the Government wanted to exclude the ISDS from a bilateral trade agreement with Canada but were quite happy to leave it in the CPTPP for Canadian investors to use. Given that Ministers have signed side letters with Australia and New Zealand to disapply the ISDS between our countries in the CPTPP, it seems bizarre that they have not attempted a similar approach with Canada.
Just after Committee, the Government confirmed that they were pulling out of the energy charter treaty, in which ISDS arrangements play a major role, saying that it does not fit with net zero ambitions. The Minister might want to try again to explain why it is essential that we remain committed to the ISDS elements of the CPTPP. It is time for a clear-eyed assessment of the risk that the ISDS poses to our interests. With the leave of the House, the Opposition will press new clause 5 to a vote.
There continue to be significant concerns about the environmental impact of accession to the CPTPP, and the impact on food standards and on animal welfare. The CPTPP covers two of the 11 deforestation fronts expected to account for 80% of deforestation by 2030. A range of environmental groups are very concerned that when the UK joins the CPTPP, preferential access to our markets will be created as a result of the removal of tariffs on palm oil. That could increase demand for products from threatened zones and exacerbate the risk of further deforestation. Ministers still have not published —never mind presented to this House—deforestation due diligence legislation under section 17 of the Environment Act 2021, so it is difficult to accept Ministers’  claims that they are fully committed to our climate change targets, and to protecting important sources of global biodiversity.
On food standards, deep concerns remain that, despite their protestations, the deals that Ministers have negotiated, including the CPTPP, will allow into the UK ever more food produced to lower standards, particularly animal welfare standards. The whole House will remember the words of the former Environment Secretary, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who told the House that the Minister and his colleagues had given away
“far too much for far too little”.—[Official Report, 14 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 424.]
when they negotiated the UK-Australia free trade agreement. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the National Farmers Union, in particular, have raised concerns that new tariffs negotiated with Mexico and Canada will leave farmers in the UK much more vulnerable to imported eggs, pork and chicken that are produced to standards that would be illegal in the UK. The Pesticide Action Network UK raised concerns acknowledged by the Trade and Agriculture Commission—concerns also raised by an hon. Friend behind me—that more food produced using pesticides banned in the UK will be imported into the UK
New clause 7 would require Ministers to publish a plan to help businesses benefit from the new trade deal. It is striking that the Office for Budget Responsibility, in its recent Budget analysis, made it clear that trade will make a negligible contribution to growth through to 2028 under Conservative party plans. We remember that the Secretary of State was appointed and within weeks exports began to fall. Then the Minister of State was reappointed to the brief and exports fell even further. Who could possibly have expected that to happen? Ministers have cut funding for trade missions led by business groups themselves, and cut funding for small and medium-sized enterprises to get to trade shows to open up new markets for themselves. The Government website for helping exporters is so poor that some firms use other countries’ websites to find where there might be opportunities. Ministers could and should be doing a whole lot better to support our businesses to take advantage of any benefits in trade deals.
New clause 7 would require Ministers, once the accession process is over, to publish a clear implementation plan to help businesses benefit from CPTPP. Preference utilisation rates for other trade deals certainly do not offer any grounds for complacency. Given that exports under the Conservative party have performed worse than every other member of the G7 bar Japan over the last decade, it was striking that the Chancellor had nothing to offer exporters and, strikingly, no mention of any plan to help British business exploit our coming membership of CPTPP in his recent Budget. For those reasons, I am sympathetic to new clause 10, tabled by the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson).
On amendment 1, as the Minister knows and as the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham set out, there remain serious doubts from industry about whether the changes the Bill allows for in relation to the UK’s copyright framework are actually required. We have had different explanations for the changes from Ministers.  At one point they were due to the CPTPP. On another occasion they were being made to comply with other international treaty obligations signed decades ago. What is clear is that the changes could have a significant impact on the ability of the music industry to support new British artists.
Because of those concerns, Ministers were forced to bring forward a consultation on the changes. The consultation will not finish until after the Bill has completed its passage through both Houses. In the worst-case scenario estimated by the Intellectual Property Office, the changes could cost over £100 million. It is likely that Royal Assent will have been granted before we know the outcome of the consultation process. Ministers were forced to bring this issue forward, which I have to say is just the latest example of, at best, a half-hearted approach to the scrutiny of trade issues by those on the Treasury Bench.